Ne and science

I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking here, but it's recently occurred to me that xNTP being a sorta thing that inclines one towards science is perhaps culturally dependent.

To me, Ne feels like a 'construct and unify' function... it feels like my natural inclination is to see unity in things, to see how things are connected... whilst the empirical scientific approach in Western culture feels like the total opposite to this... it seems to me much more Si-ish. All about breaking things down into categories, dividing and sub-dividing and classifying, distinguishing and just really, as I say, the opposite of the unity-perceiving inclinations of Ne.

Whenever I've looked at the sciences, I've felt like I was presented with a deconstructed mess that had been made by people before me, who had come along to a table on which was a fine jigsaw puzzle all put together beautifully, and they've just taken it to pieces and heaped the thousands of pieces in various lumps and piles all over the table, with little flags stuck in each pile saying SKY, GRASS, LEAVES, FUR, WATER, etc... and as fast as I'm trying to figure out what the whole picture is supposed to be and put it back together, "proper scientists" are taking it apart again, breaking the piles down further into GREEN LEAVES, BROWN LEAVES... I stand at the table with all these scientists patting themselves on the back for having created yet another category, getting excited and thinking they're understanding reality more the more they break it down, and I look at these piles and exasperatedly ask "Why??? Whatever did you do THAT for??? How is anyone supposed to know what the picture looks like now???"

It just seems to me that modern scientific method is tailor made to drive the Ne dominant person insane with frustration. It occurs to me that the universalist, bigger picture approach to understanding reality that one encounters in some Eastern philosophies is something more in line with the Ne temperament.

Yeah sorry, I just put it in the NT rationale though of course any Ne type is included in my thoughts... maybe it should be in the MBTI section!

Some of the really high level physics stuff can be good, when you go into theory again and nothing can really be proven as such and it becomes philosophy again rather than that dull divide-and-categorize approach of most science. But i'd have to take my hat off to any Ne type that manages to make it that far through the plodding stages to actually get to the interesting part.

Some of the really high level physics stuff can be good, when you go into theory again and nothing can really be proven as such and it becomes philosophy again rather than that dull divide-and-categorize approach of most science. But i'd have to take my hat off to any Ne type that manages to make it that far through the plodding stages to actually get to the interesting part.

I think a lot of sciences show the "divide and categorize" face more than the "put things together" phase because a lot of different "small pieces" are needed to be able to put them together and actually get useful results. The sciences that seem to have the big overarching theories at the moment (physics mostly, some chemistry fits this as well), have relatively simple principles, and tend not to have the large amount of interactions that a lot of other sciences do.

(Compare, say, the electricity and magnetism laws, with their simple relationships and small amount of things to keep track of, to the workings of a cell, with huge amounts of types of molecules, interactions between those molecules, stuff flowing in and out, etc. Or compare to weather/climate, which again has a huge amount of interactions going on.)

There are areas (such as turbulence, or the structures of liquids.), where there seem to be plenty of opportunities for people who want to work out an underlying pattern for understanding what is going on.

Last year at Back to School night, my son's Econ. teacher told us the subject was quite difficult because it involved many seemingly unrelated concepts that only came together at the end to form a unified system. "Like Physics."

I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking here, but it's recently occurred to me that xNTP being a sorta thing that inclines one towards science is perhaps culturally dependent.

To me, Ne feels like a 'construct and unify' function... it feels like my natural inclination is to see unity in things, to see how things are connected... whilst the empirical scientific approach in Western culture feels like the total opposite to this... it seems to me much more Si-ish. All about breaking things down into categories, dividing and sub-dividing and classifying, distinguishing and just really, as I say, the opposite of the unity-perceiving inclinations of Ne.

Whenever I've looked at the sciences, I've felt like I was presented with a deconstructed mess that had been made by people before me, who had come along to a table on which was a fine jigsaw puzzle all put together beautifully, and they've just taken it to pieces and heaped the thousands of pieces in various lumps and piles all over the table, with little flags stuck in each pile saying SKY, GRASS, LEAVES, FUR, WATER, etc... and as fast as I'm trying to figure out what the whole picture is supposed to be and put it back together, "proper scientists" are taking it apart again, breaking the piles down further into GREEN LEAVES, BROWN LEAVES... I stand at the table with all these scientists patting themselves on the back for having created yet another category, getting excited and thinking they're understanding reality more the more they break it down, and I look at these piles and exasperatedly ask "Why??? Whatever did you do THAT for??? How is anyone supposed to know what the picture looks like now???"

It just seems to me that modern scientific method is tailor made to drive the Ne dominant person insane with frustration. It occurs to me that the universalist, bigger picture approach to understanding reality that one encounters in some Eastern philosophies is something more in line with the Ne temperament.

Any thoughts, anyone?

I don't think it quite has that effect on J types, at least not on me.
I love to classify everything.

I have always loved science.
I understand the "scientific method" of conducting experiments and I use it from time to time.

I use the phrase "got it down to a science" frequently in my life, as I prefer to develop a "best way" of doing things, and then do it that way regularly, if I can.

I always have to find the fastest most efficient way of doing everything I do.

In some profiles, the INTJ is called "the scientist".
I relate to that.

I don't think it quite has that effect on J types, at least not on me.
I love to classify everything.

I have always loved science.
I understand the "scientific method" of conducting experiments and I use it from time to time.

I use the phrase "got it down to a science" frequently in my life, as I prefer to develop a "best way" of doing things, and then do it that way regularly, if I can.

I always have to find the fastest most efficient way of doing everything I do.

In some profiles, the INTJ is called "the scientist".
I relate to that.

I can't speak for Ne types, but I relate very much to all of this. I pretty much live by the scientific method, too.

A lot of my science profs and scientist ex-coworkers seem like either ENTPs or ISTPs, but especially ENTPs. I'm not sure why. Those just seem to be overrepresented in the scientists I've known, for some reason. Ne/Se + Ti combo seems to point in that direction a lot, I guess. I don't see that many ESTPs or INTPs though, oddly.

Or maybe ENTPs/ISTPs are just easiest for me to identify, or maybe I'm mistyping them. Who knows really.

edit: on the other hand, some of my most brilliant friends and classmates are clearly INTJs, too. So I'm sure they're fairly well represented, too.

I *love* science but I really don't like *doing* science, if that makes any sense.

Theories, explanations, answers to why? questions that just turn up more questions -- all of this I absolutely adore.

But I hate detail work, I hate painstakingly setting up equipment in a pre-designed lab just to flip a switch and stare at it for 3+ hours to make sure nothing goes wrong, and some extremely obscure topics are just hard to get excited over.

Upper division labs get fun, though; basically they just give you the problem you need to figure out, the keys to the lab, and tell you not to kill yourself but to use whatever you need to get the job done and design your own experiment. That allows for some freedom and creativity.

That creative element -- I sort of need that.

I think if I could design my own major it'd be some weird physics/upper-level experimental science/engineering/mathematics Nikola Tesla insanity-inspired awesomeness. I'd probably kill myself though, but it'd be cool while it lasted.

Edit: In general, people are right about sticking with it: it gets good at upper levels. I think ENTPs are well-suited for most sciences if they can get through the grunt work on the early levels.

Edit x2: To answer substitute's question, it's not so much the deconstructionism per se that I don't like, as much as it's the side-effect of having to delve into so many details as well as the way it's presented in undergraduate education in general. Ironically, though, I'm a mathematics/physics major.

You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. - Jack London

I love science. I love to know how things work, be it bigger picture or small. Though I wouldnt imagine myself working all my life in such a field, it is fascinating however.

It all points to the spiritual side of things that makes one say YES THERE IS A CREATOR!!!
How this ONE PERFECT Creator, made everything in perfection, with such perfect and intelligent design. He did not create things in vain, but for us to reflect and ponder on His Might, Power and Wisdom.
So "Substitute" dear, your reflection here is not lost or vain.